Man in Zorro Costume Detained Ahead of Chaotic Night at LAX

I wont get into understanding of religion as that is whole another topic. All religious text can be considered inflammatory and anti women/homosexual. And text doesn't carry out a random act of violence against society, especially when text in a holy book prohibit doing so.

American Muslims haven't killed innocent Americans in the 50 states, except for those who did mass shootings using... guess what... guns. Which they obtained thanks to lax gun control laws. How about I'll give your side to pass that test on religion and indoctrination (and I'll go take that test, and pass in flying colors), so as long as your gun side also take a mental health evaluation before getting a handgun legally? Sounds like we have a deal. :)

MY point is what you are waving as a full-fledged right, is in actuality (practice?), not really a right in quite a few states. IT JUST ISN'T. It has nothing to do with religion and what someone believes or indoctrination. We are talking the current laws *today* are not uniform in regards to how the 2A is interpreted across different states. What does the future trend indicate? For or against? It would seem the red states are for and the blue states are not as much, and in some cases, against.

But none of that changes what is today. Today, you can be any religion in any state. But protest by throwing an AR across your shoulders? You can't do that legally in several states. While in others, it's perfectly legal.

Do you see the point that the 2A application is just not the same. It isn't I (myself) who is saying this. It's this Republic, this country, these 50 states, each of whom have a different understanding of what 2A means, and their associate state laws about ownership, purchasing, rights to conceal carry, and open carry. Some states you can open carry and conceal carry. Some states you can conceal carry, but not open carry. Some states you can't conceal carry nor open carry. Some guns allowed in one state, while a neighboring state that gun would be illegal (countless examples of PA vs NJ). My Mossberg 715t which was legal in California was not legal in NJ and I had to sell it to a local pawn shop before moving.

So how can you say I had a right to that gun? Looked more like a privilege I had to have it in California, and a privilege I had to give up moving to Jersey. At least, that was my experience. My particular model which was perfectly legal in CA was not so in NJ.

How can you tout something as a "right" when this Republic, our 50 states, all *clearly* differ on what the 2A is and therefore, what it allows us to do and not allow us to do?


I'm now gun-less because of that move from the SFO base to NYC. So you tell me I have a 2A and a gun right. Practice and reality says otherwise. But as far as I know, I kept my religion intact during the move :)

Jesus

It's amazing that you can be spouting all the judicial claims being pushed in court as we speak for the gun rights argument while at the same time telling yourself it's not a right.

You've been indoctrinated that it's not a right because certain governments/states/localities say so. And they did it by convincing you of the same argument you parrot in here, that fear should motivate us to give up our rights.

That's not how the constitution works.

You're making our argument for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And if that is constitutionally illegal, then the SCOTUS will have to rule.

Googling images of "US soldiers" and this was the first image that came:

640x392_24452_194439.jpg




Are those the weapons California banned? Maybe they see that as weapons of war, and like other weapons we have deemed not applicable per the 2A, doesn't apply? Again, for the SCOTUS to decide and rule on.

Personally, I'd rather not see someone walking down the street with that slung on their shoulders. It's just going to lead to a 911 call. Of course the state I live in, if someone does that, the hammer's gonna drop down on them pretty quick.
Just curious.............using your "logic", what about all the sidearms that are slung on their hips, chests, legs and where ever, of all Military soldiers from all the branches? Are those all not "weapons of war" as well? Where does it end? What are the parameters exactly? Who decides? What guns have not been used by the Military?

Whether we accept arbitrary lists or attempts at reasonable definitions, there is no sensible or reasonable distinction between guns that are uniquely “military” and guns that are not. Advocates of gun control should be truthful and just admit that they either don’t know what they’re talking about, or in all reality, they just want to ban all guns, period. The rest of us pretty much know this to be the case already, but it would be refreshing and honest for a change, if they would stop pretending otherwise and using ridiculous excuses.
 
Last edited:
Just curious.............using your "logic", what about all the sidearms that are slung on their hips, chests, legs and where ever, of all Military soldiers from all the branches? Are those all not "weapons of war" as well? Where does it end? What are the parameters exactly? Who decides? What guns have not been used by the Military?

Whether we accept arbitrary lists or attempts at reasonable definitions, there is no sensible or reasonable distinction between guns that are uniquely “military” and guns that are not. Advocates of gun control should be truthful and just admit that they either don’t know what they’re talking about, or in all reality, they just want to ban all guns, period. We pretty much know this to be the case already, but it would be refreshing and honest for a change, if they would stop pretending otherwise and using ridiculous excuses.

The ones calling for banning "assault rifles" don't like the "big black rifles" used in mass shootings. It would seem most are okay with shotguns. And certain handguns.

To be fair though, the VT mass shooting was two handguns.

But you have a good point, I don't know that there is an answer to it.
 
Jesus

It's amazing that you can be spouting all the judicial claims being pushed in court as we speak for the gun rights argument while at the same time telling yourself it's not a right.

You've been indoctrinated that it's not a right because certain governments/states/localities say so. And they did it by convincing you of the same argument you parrot in here, that fear should motivate us to give up our rights.

That's not how the constitution works.

You're making our argument for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we got into a war of words, but all I'm saying is I had to give up my gun to move from one state into another. And in the state I live, I honestly don't see a positive pro-gun movement ----- and that's with a Republican governor. My indoctrination aside, I have no legal recourse for what happened. It is what it is. If I spend money on a lawyer and try and get a lawsuit, he's only going to look at the current books and say what happened was within legal bounds. Sounds like someone should take it up with SCOTUS, but I'll leave that for the real pro gunners and NRA.

Neither does a firearm.

Makes their job easy with it though!
 
I think we got into a war of words, but all I'm saying is I had to give up my gun to move from one state into another. And in the state I live, I honestly don't see a positive pro-gun movement ----- and that's with a Republican governor. My indoctrination aside, I have no legal recourse for what happened. It is what it is. If I spend money on a lawyer and try and get a lawsuit, he's only going to look at the current books and say what happened was within legal bounds. Sounds like someone should take it up with SCOTUS, but I'll leave that for the real pro gunners and NRA.



Makes their job easy with it though!

Do you not see the exact equivalency in the slow erosion of personal freedoms at the state level with the same push for the same ineffective laws at the national level.

You start these threads talking about how "nothing is getting done" nationally or arguing that the gun lobby stops us from even having a conversation but at the same time you're self admittedly disarmed due to your geography in a state known for extremely heavy handed (and in recent cases unconstitutional) gun control legislation. Your admitting the exact reason gun rights and constitutionalist come out severely opposed to these national level programs taken from these failed state systems.

We've seen these systems and more importantly their real goal (disarmament) and we refuse to simply give up those rights until a lawyer or a judge tells us the law was wrong. California and others continue to push for more and more gun control while telling the rest of the country the problem without and effective or measurable difference in crime, terror, or mass shootings.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, alright fair enough, can't deny that (except the complete disarmament part). I gotta say I owe you a drink for all the good convos. We may not agree on much, but I respect what you write.

Education is the key.

When I was 20 and ignorant and didn't really have a gun culture exposure from family due to growing up on post or overseas I thought "yeah assault weapons who the hell needs those."

It was only after I dived into the actual legal definitions or started to own/want to own my own that guns and greater erosion of personal rights I really got into the debate. The problem is that the label "reasonable restriction" being is given a free pass and it will have effect on all those other freedoms we enjoy and should defedn.

Dad and grandpa had a couple guns sure, they were both in Law Enforcement/military at some point but they weren't really big either way and they weren't in the house much if ever. So I got to make up my own mind. A lot of people didn't get that opportunity because they grew up being force fed koolaid on how guns are only ever bad and can never ever ever be used for good.

My run down was kinda simple as far as gun ownership... I didn't have anything until I moved to a really craptastic city in a crappy apartment because that's what I could afford and went yeah I want something for when some crack head kicks in our front door. Stole/borrowed dad's .357 M19 revolver and that did that job. Bought a USP .40 for work and carried it for a while, also bought another couple handguns (small .38s and a P7M8) as carry/backup guns. And while I was at it I bought a 12 guage 870 clone just because why not. It wasn't until I saw Katrina and the full disaster of civil service that was that I went "I need to start prepping for worst case" and I bought an M4 clone "assault weapon." It wasn't about fighting the government or anything else that drove me to say the handguns Ive got and the one shotgun aren't gonna cut it, or some "gubment comin to take my baby" thing, it was a demonstration that when stuff goes seriously sideways I am not going to be left (and believe me you were on your own down there) to defend myself and literally step into an environment where my stuff and my life and my friends/family's wellbeing are my responsibility. hopefully Ive got the big gun or at least look scary enough (and they totally do) that some form of deterrence is assured and I can either keep some wolf from feeding on me or make him think about it long enough to extricate myself my family and what we need to survive from the situation. And now Ive got a couple but really they sit in the safe not getting used much because ammo is expensive and like boats or airplanes they are expensive to feed.

Now days I don't even shoot that much, and most of my collection is really that... a collection. Theres a couple go to "SHTF/Zombie Apocolypse" type guns that are ready and able when needed, but for the most part its just a hobby/investment. I've used the hunting though (hogs and coyotes) and I know plenty of people that use them the way shotguns were widely used beforehand (home defense or field guns) because they are very effective at it. But god forbid somebody decides that simple possession of a firearm type or classification or an attraction to shooting one type of gun be enough to suddenly start asking questions and treating people like less than the rest of us. People absolutely deserve the right to be able to defend themselves, on an equal footing which is what a firearm does. I was in college when Virginia Tech happened. The difference between me and almost every other student on that campus though was I was allowed by law to carry a gun while I went to class. Had something like that happened where somebody armed with firearms that were legal (even by CA standard) come through and wholesale went nuts Id have at least had an option other than try to find a door that locks and pray. It made me realize though, there were 20K+ students on my university alone that didn't get that same right. Why was my life more important than there's just because Id had all of 20 hours of firearms instruction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Yep. I mean the very rich, and probably most people in the first world are going to manage mostly fine... for a while. I used to think "man, if I ever have kids/grandkids I feel really bad for the world they're going to grow up into." Now I'm honestly pretty concerned about how things are going to shape up in MY lifetime. Pretty shocking how much the drought in Syria contributed to the civil war starting and eventually all the issues now.

We're pretty hosed because, as you see, people can't see the forest for the trees.

Remember, we're a nation of "anti vaxxers" because a swimsuit model with amazing cans and her comedian ex-husband declared them bad despite what common sense, science and, well, anyone with more than a high school education thinks.

Sorry, just a little bitter after hanging out with two Swiss guys that were having a field day talking about the state of science and politics in America.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, just a little bitter after hanging out with two Swiss guys that were having a field day talking about the state of science and politics in America.

Bashing the US is a sport for Euros.

I like to counter by asking them pointed questions about their own political and economic systems, and rarely do they appreciate the same type of criticism of their own house.
 
Sorry, just a little bitter after hanging out with two Swiss guys that were having a field day talking about the state of science and politics in America.

Bashing the US is a sport for Euros.

I like to counter by asking them pointed questions about their own political and economic systems, and rarely do they appreciate the same type of criticism of their own house.

Meh. Mere Euro jealousy. Standard.

The Euros think their house is clean and pristine......until you hold the mirror up to it.
 
Meh. Mere Euro jealousy. Standard.

The Euros think their house is clean and pristine......until you hold the mirror up to it.

There are many things they do better in Europe than we do here. But I never regret the decision to move here. The goal should be to make this country better, and we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss everything anyone else does, aside from those which create constitutional problems.
 
There are many things they do better in Europe than we do here. But I never regret the decision to move here. The goal should be to make this country better, and we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss everything anyone else does, aside from those which create constitutional problems.

Agreed.

The point I was trying to make is that we all have messy yards, whether here or there. Maybe different types of messes, but no one has a completely clean yard to where they can sit on some high pedestal of judgement without acknowledging their own woes..
 
Bashing the US is a sport for Euros.

I like to counter by asking them pointed questions about their own political and economic systems, and rarely do they appreciate the same type of criticism of their own house.
Also those stupid man-pri pants, "line up and wait", and "finals runway 24". Eff that noise.
 
Back
Top